Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

115 (44.7%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.7%)

Total Members Voted: 252

[Strongpoint]

Yes, the fundies should be wiped out. But if someone tried to wipe out moderate religion with them, well I'd fight against that, gun in hand.

Those are inseparable. You can't have an ideology and don't have people that go deep into it. Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.

And now you see why I don't trust snobby atheists. Why should I take your arguments to heart, or think you're doing this in good faith (no pun intended) if you're willing to blatantly misrepresent me?

It is not a strawman, it is pointing out that irrational beliefs are a source of a lot of shit that doesn't justify - it would be boring otherwise. Also, I see nothing boring in marvelous, complex, infinite reality. There is no need to mix it with falsehoods.

[Rolan7]

Yes, the fundies should be wiped out. But if someone tried to wipe out moderate religion with them, well I'd fight against that, gun in hand.

Those are inseparable. You can't have an ideology and don't have people that go deep into it. Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.

I *worry* that this is the case, but is it??  I see a religious person and I think "What if they decide to hate me [like those other tenuously-related religious people]?  Maybe I can learn their scripture and make an argument based on that [bigots are basically never actually scriptural, their bigotry is axiomatic and supersedes their scripture]".
That's a fear/trauma response, not a rational criticism of all faith or spiritual thinking.

I do worry that any sort of organized religion will inevitably lead to bigoted dogma, but that seems to happen with secular groups as well.  Might just be a xenophobic impulse (balanced against a strong compassionate impulse, with the phobia gaining ground in times of strife).

And now you see why I don't trust snobby atheists. Why should I take your arguments to heart, or think you're doing this in good faith (no pun intended) if you're willing to blatantly misrepresent me?

It is not a strawman, it is pointing out that irrational beliefs are a source of a lot of shit that doesn't justify - it would be boring otherwise. Also, I see nothing boring in marvelous, complex, infinite reality. There is no need to mix it with falsehoods.

I stopped trusting snobby atheists when a good portion went on to carry on religious-style bigotry but in an "enlightened", "rational", nationalist/race-realist/misogynist way.

I do align with secular humanists who don't tolerate that nonsense.  They're quite tolerant of my nebulous and evolving spirituality as well, which seems like a good sign.

Edit:

Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.

Forgot to properly reply to this part (due to my trauma-response).  This is ridiculous.  Moderation, or temperance, is a good thing for every ideology.  It's generally healthier for a person to be well-rounded.  The vast majority of religious people seem to understand that just like most areligious people.

[jipehog]

Yes, the fundies should be wiped out.

I think that large portion of people you meet online with extreme views are often young people who are still figuring out stuff and insecure in their beliefs, but they usually grow out of it.

I do not like people only cast stone at others and think that their shit don't stink.

[MaxTheFox]

Yes, the fundies should be wiped out. But if someone tried to wipe out moderate religion with them, well I'd fight against that, gun in hand.

Those are inseparable. You can't have an ideology and don't have people that go deep into it. Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.

And now you see why I don't trust snobby atheists. Why should I take your arguments to heart, or think you're doing this in good faith (no pun intended) if you're willing to blatantly misrepresent me?

It is not a strawman, it is pointing out that irrational beliefs are a source of a lot of shit that doesn't justify - it would be boring otherwise. Also, I see nothing boring in marvelous, complex, infinite reality. There is no need to mix it with falsehoods.

1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient. The real cause of bigotry is simply a fear of people who are not like you and it is a primal feeling. I admit religion can be a catalyst in it but generally bigots are good at finding excuses for their bigotry. And, well, I consider myself something of a paragon of my faith, after all I read the Bible unlike most Christians and I spend my time defending it on some half-dead internet forum. And yet I am far from a bigot.
2. Something about purely physical reality is too terrifying for me. And besides I was talking about what a culture in a hypothetical society of human-Vulcans would be like. :p (though tbh Vulcans are kind of hypocrites even in TOS)

Yes, the fundies should be wiped out.

I think that large portion of people you meet online with extreme views are often young people who are still figuring out stuff and insecure in their beliefs, but they usually grow out of it.

I do not like people only cast stone at others and think that their shit don't stink.

Wiped out, meaning their bigoted interpretation being wiped out. I don't propose, I don't know, putting them against the wall. I'm not like that anymore.

[Frumple]

I think that large portion of people you meet online with extreme views are often young people who are still figuring out stuff and insecure in their beliefs, but they usually grow out of it.

I can guarantee you a great deal of the folks being referenced are neither young nor particularly online. Fundamentalist christianity in particular is bleeding youth demographics like a stuck pig, and continuing to radicalize rather than moderate as its average age grows older.

Some portion of the online nuts are young and will grow out of it, but I wouldn't be comfortable calling that portion "large".

So far as personal experience offline goes, it's been a lot less common for extreme beliefs when relatively young to moderate as the person ages. Generally it's the exact opposite, beliefs further radicalizing as accumulated wealth and social connections/political influence brought on by age insulates them from meaningful pushback or consequence.

[Strongpoint]

1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient.

Don't mix an extreme form of an ideology (subvariant of the said ideology) with devotion to it.  An extreme version of whatever ism is bad not because some people extremely follow it, it is bad because it is itself extreme and millions of moderate followers of such version are also dangerous.

[jipehog]

It is clear that vast majority of people here are on the Railgun side, so why are you here?

[MaxTheFox]

1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient.

Don't mix an extreme form of an ideology (subvariant of the said ideology) with devotion to it.  An extreme version of whatever ism is bad not because some people extremely follow it, it is bad because it is itself extreme and millions of moderate followers of such version are also dangerous.

Well I just disagree with your assessment then. I consider fundamentalism to be kind of... a separate thing that can be made unacceptable separately from moderate faith. I try and dissociate from them.

[Strongpoint]

1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient.

Don't mix an extreme form of an ideology (subvariant of the said ideology) with devotion to it.  An extreme version of whatever ism is bad not because some people extremely follow it, it is bad because it is itself extreme and millions of moderate followers of such version are also dangerous.

Well I just disagree with your assessment then. I consider fundamentalism to be kind of... a separate thing that can be made unacceptable separately from moderate faith. I try and dissociate from them.

And I think that Christianity is not separable from homophobia and not even because of some lines in Leviticus or Romans.

One of the core ideas of Christianity is sin, deviation from God's perfect plan. And his plan on how and when people should have sex is quite clear in the Christian doctrine:

Two halves, a Man and a Woman come together and unite in one thing to produce babies. There is simply no place for recreational sex, premarital sex, divorce, and a same-sex union. Luckily, Most Christians are just not devout enough to follow this doctrine but for very devout ones anything that deviates from this is a sin by definition, and sin is a bad thing and people who willingly sin are bad people.

[MaxTheFox]

Ok.

[McTraveller]

Ok so there's a lot open for discussion there I think.

Sin isn't "you're a bad person" sin is "you're missing the mark."  Now, in common parlance sin is associated with "you're a bad person" but that's not the fault of doctrine, that's the fault of people (if you ask me: being lazy at best or malicious at worst with the meaning of the word) - again, because people miss the mark.  The interesting thing is that traditionally you don't punish people for missing the mark - you train them to get better at hitting the mark.

Things like slavery, oppression, bigotry, deviant behavior (sexual or otherwise) are all missing the mark.

Some things are clearly bad in that they obviously harm other people, like brutality, meanness, withholding food, and the like.

Other things don't appear to be harmful but they are still missing the mark.  Those things aren't about harm so much as they are a corruption of the intent: there is something better.  I'd say most sexual sins are in this arena - sexual expression is arguably better if in the context of a mutually respectful, typically¹ procreative relationship.

I fully agree though that many modern Western "Christians" completely forget the Bible opens with the statement that we live in a fallen world - even the world itself makes life "hard" with weeds and death and striving - even striving "between man and woman."  And a big part of the original sin is acting like we are gods, deciding we know what's best; basically, pride.  But everything is an imperfect reflection of its intent.dis

Many modern Western "Christians" also fall into the same trap as the Pharisees - incorrectly associating righteousness with behaving in a certain way and claiming to know what's best.

My take on sexual and identity issues is like Paul says: everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. And this is on an individual basis, not a global statement (e.g., "some people are fine eating this food, others aren't; treat each accordingly.")  And on the flip side, what's beneficial for a particular individual, isn't always beneficial for society as a whole.  Even beyond that, there's the fundamental question of - does any world view promote the glory of God, or the glory of Mankind?  This is a test even for many things claiming to be "Christian" - because they really don't promote the glory of God.

¹ By 'typically' here I mean 'as a member of the type or class of' - that is, procreation is through male types mating with female types, even if particular members of those types are physiologically incapable of procreation.

[Superdorf]

I'm curious, what's your denominational background McTraveller? You've been putting out some really nicely thought-out theology the past week or so.

[Telgin]

My take on sexual and identity issues is like Paul says: everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.

Curious, but which passage says or implies this?  I'd like to look over it in its full context.

[McTraveller]

1 Cor 6:12, 1 Cor 10:23 are the ones of which I was thinking - although in the search I used it says "all things are permitted, but not are all profitable" which is close enough.  I have what you might call good ... meaning recall? of passages, but not literal. I also can't quote chapter and verse, just kind of know roughly where things are. I am glad we live in a world with search functions

My background is... I'd say mostly just general Protestant. I also have what I'd call a healthy mix of Luther, Wesley, Calvin, and Arminianism.  Definitely more Presbyterian & Methodist than Baptist or Pentecostal, though I do believe the Spirit still works today, even if in different manifestations than in days past.  I was baptized Catholic (yay "culturally Catholic" Sicilian roots) and know a bit about Catholicism, but I am decidedly Protestant.

I've also been accused of being studious - I don't just take things at face value, and I've read a lot. I used to read way more than I do now, too - especially in those formative late high school / early college years.  But now I tend to still recall a quote from GK Chesterton - "all I have seen, leads me to have faith for those things I have not seen" (paraphrase of course).

Some good books include "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth" - basically how to academically study scripture, not just be sentimental about it.  I've suffered through really admiring people like Ravi Zacharias, and being dismayed by what was going on behind the surface. Others too - I had a respected teacher from a conference basically turn away from the church because of his sexuality and had to work through what that means. How do you have a person who really knows scriptures, and can inspire people to follow Christ, but suffer with such an internal struggle? How much of what we know is shaped by our experience, versus actual truth?

Mostly as I've aged, I've shifted from worrying about "being right" to instead worry about "being loving."  For even if I get some minutiae wrong, you can't go wrong with being loving. After all, it's not up to me to decide or even assess who does and doesn't follow Jesus - that's up to the Spirit. But it is up to me to live in a loving and serving way.  Even as flawed as I am, and even as I still struggle with loving people who I really don't agree with.  And given the things I say about other drivers in traffic when I'm the only person in my car... well, I have a long way to go 

[Strongpoint]

everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial

I am used to a form like this: "Everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial for me. Everything is permissible for me but nothing should be my master". It was the favorite bible quote of my godfather.